How False Narratives Work in the Liberal Media---It's All Boehner's Fault!

Late last night, in an attempt to pass a three week extension on a DHS funding bill, John Boehner and the Republican-controlled House came up short on the voting.  Some of the liberal media pundits began their false narratives soon after, yet, in a moment of "Democratic Disarray", Nancy Pelosi had to come to rescue the Democrats from purgatory.   

Headline from Politico: Congress passes one-week DHS fix

"The last-minute move comes after House Republicans dealt a humiliating defeat to John Boehner."

The "set-up" from Politico:

And Boehner’s allies believe that the earlier DHS debacle on Friday, when 52 Republicans voted against the three-week plan, was in part aimed at toppling the speaker.

And, my response:

Wouldn't it have been nice if the non-biased authors here included---in the context of this story---the fact that 176 Democrats voted against the three week plan? That right folks, the whole narrative of the story changes when it’s factually reported that only 12 Democrats voted for the 3-week extension. When the final failing tally came out, (224-203), even liberal reporters like Dana Bash at CNN and Erin Burnett on Out Front were asking [at the time] if the Democrats realized that in the event of no other votes taken that night, they, DEMOCRATS, would be seen as responsible for a DHS shutdown. 

And let’s not forget the reason for this whole mess---Barack Obama taking immigration law into his own hands and changing it by lawless executive orders to allow/afford five million illegal immigrants almost all of the rights of American citizens, including social security cards, up to $24,000 in tax refunds for each family, and all the public amenities afforded to legal immigrants---changes in immigration laws that Obama said himself just a year ago that he didn’t have executive rights to do. 

But, by all means, let’s play the political “gotcha” games, (including bogus narratives blaming John Boehner for what Republican house representatives were elected to do, (along with now a Federal Judge)---to stop Obama’s illegal interference with immigration laws that are constitutionally left up to the legislature, not the executive branch. 

Democrats, (Harry and Nancy), keep asking for a “clean bill”, (as if they’ve ever provided one in the past when they were in power), yet the full funding of the Department of Homeland Security is stained with Obama’s fingerprints all over it---directing DHS to head up an illegally obtained program a majority of Americans disapprove of. Let’s forget the attention and manpower needed to implement this illegal program, (while the primary job of DHS is to protect this nation from terrorist entities), and hand Obama and the Democrats what they want---a clean Boehner bill---that provides this President with powers he clearly does not possess. 

Apparently Democrats are o.k. with subverting Constitutional law even if most American citizens are not. As if cramming ObamaCare down the throats of Americans didn’t cost the Democrats dearly, (see 2014 Shellacking), let’s give the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi Democrats what they want, again, and see how this plays out in 2016 when the liberal Democrats take another shellacking. Give them their unclean bill, and let them choke on it.

(It should be also noted that in the ditch Mitch McConnell passed this fiasco down to the House, when he, and his cowardly beltway Republican cohorts gave in to the Democrats demands to remove the immigration rider.  As a Conservative Republican, I can safely say I'm embarrassed at the actions of this "Republican-controlled" Senate.  Apparently, they are not in control of anything)


~ Rov

John and Jeb turn to liberal "illogic"

Apparently opposing a path to citizenship for so-called "dreamers" is not only immoral, but so inane as to deserve mockery.  No reasonable or moral person could oppose citizenship for children brought here by there illegal alien parents.

"It's about basic fairness," said John Boehner back in July of 2013.  "These children were brought here on no accord of their own."

And now we find out that about the same time, Jeb Bush claimed that it's "ridiculous" not to put such children on an "accelerated path" to citizenship.

But is there any sound argument here?  Or just more liberal illogic?  Amnesty advocates -- and now act of love advocates -- have never been terribly clear about their reasoning.  It's not hard to see why.

Boehner, as does Bush, appeals to fairness.  It's the only fair thing to do grant them a fast track to citizenship.  Unfortunately none of them bother to explain where they found this "principle of fairness":

Not Boehner, not Bush, not Rubio, not Dick Durbin and Orrin Hatch (the co-sponsors of the original proposed 2001 "Dream Act"), not anyone has explained why it is fair to let the children of illegal aliens go to the front of the immigration/citizenship line!

Why should an 18 year old, born in a foreign country, brought here illegally, be "fast-tracked" ahead of a 25 year old who's been trying to come here legally for a year, five years, seven years? 

We are being asked to accept the idea that it's fair to let someone go to the head of the line because of someone else's criminal act.  There is nothing fair about John Boehner's (and Eric Cantor's) and Jeb Bush's proposed solution. In fact, it is demonstrably unfair.

But Bush whines (or scolds?) that not to give them the fast track is to make them pay a price for their parents' "decisions," that is, their parents' crimes.  

Bush gets this completely wrong.  To claim that they don't deserve a fast-track to citizenship is only to claim that they do not deserve to be rewarded for their parents' crimes.  

They are not -- pace Jeb -- being asked to pay any price!  Their are no fines or court summons being issued.  They go to schools paid for by American citizens; hardly a "price." 

Imagine at the age of 5, a child's parents figure out how to "move" illegally from a dilapidated tenement into a modest, but clearly superior tract home, which they do not own and have no legal or moral right to live there.  And they live their for several years.  The crime is well-known.  But no one bothers to do anything about it.

Is there any moral principle that says that the children are entitled now to ownership of the house?  Yet this is what we are asked to believe by the "act of love" advocates.  We do not accept this principle for any other crime.  Why accept it here?  

You will not hear an answer to this question.

Jeb is not through: if we don't give them citizenship, we would in effect render them "country-less." This, however, is just obtuse. Clearly they have a country: the country in which they were born.  There is a place where they can exercise their citizenship rights.  According to Jeb, however, they should be allowed to exercise their citizenship rights.... where they spent the most time....?  huh ?

Again -- the principle underlying this claim is simply unfathomable.  Children of diplomats or military or businessmen do not acquire this strange entitlement because they spent a lot of time in a country different from their native home.  What is the rationale here?  (There isn't one.)  

The irony is this -- their parents are applauded for their act of love, for wanting to make a better life by committing a criminal act.  However, it's wrong to suggest to -- never mind encouraging -- the children, upon reaching the age of 18, to respect the law, go back to their native country -- and apply to come to the United States of America legally.  

The irony is perhaps magnified by a condition of the original law, requiring them to be of good moral character.  Apparently, in the eyes of people like John and Jeb, "good moral character" has nothing to do with refusing to benefit from the crimes of your parents.